First off, you should always seriously consider skipping, especially if you know nothing about the property in question. Skipping isn't the mark of failure, it's simply a way of saying that you genuinely think that someone else might be able to objectively assess the answer better than you can.
So what are your remaining options?
Looks OK - Not ...
In that dialog, you are expected to do something to the post you're reviewing. You have all the same options you do when looking at a post outside review, and once you do, the review is considered "finished". From the Review help page:
In these queues, you can edit the post, flag it, upvote or downvote it, add a comment, or upvote a previously existing ...
I can't answer for the administrators who set up the review audit system, but I suspect it has to do with the fact that this site is small enough that review audits aren't really necessary.1 There is a small group of reviewers on this site, and it's not too difficult for moderators to make sure those reviewers are doing a good job on reviews (either by ...
They made a change based on a Feature Request on Meta.SE. All sites are affected.
Can we raise the bar for reputation for late answers to bypass the review queue?
The feature request was accepted and raised the bar from 10 rep to 50 with a potential increase to 100 rep in the future, per the answer from Jon Ericson:
Raising the bar to 100 would require ...
Disclaimer: this answer may contain some personal biases, as I'm an active reviewer myself. But I'll try to make clear where I'm speaking as a moderator and where I'm just voicing my own opinions as a user.
NAN is sometimes flat-out wrong, but sometimes it's a matter of taste.
You mention the idea of removing the "No Action Needed" button altogether, but ...
Yes, your review privileges have been temporarily revoked.
This is not a bug. Review bans are one of the tools available to moderators to combat robo-reviewing, when a particular user has a track record of bad reviews or it appears that they're not taking enough care over reviewing.
In your case, you were blocked from reviewing after moderators noticed a ...
That user has posted two questions and no answers on this site. The first question (call it post A) was not the one from the linked review (post B). Post A was deleted earlier today, leaving post B as the only post belonging to that user which remained undeleted. Thus post B became, in a sense, the user's "first post" and was put into the First Posts review ...
It's never a bad thing to edit a post for grammar. In some cases, you may be wasting your own free time, but that's your choice.
In the typical case, you clean up the grammar on a bad answer and it gets deleted or ignored; no harm/no foul. However, that's not the only option. Other possibities:
The OP might come back and see his answer marked NAA, and turn ...
Firstly, thank you for taking the time to post this! It's rare to see such a conscientious reviewer, and much appreciated. I hope you'll be more active in the review queues in the future!
There's a fairly small set of possible actions you can take on a First Post or Late Answer: you can upvote, downvote, (suggest an) edit, add a comment, flag, (vote to) ...
Why can't I review posts anymore?
Because your review privileges have been temporarily revoked, due to a series of bad reviews.
56 of your 57 First Posts reviews have been "No Action Needed", which is a warning sign in itself since some kind of action is usually appropriate. (You can review your reviews here - note that this link works only for you and ...
The vote wasn’t there long enough
As discussed on the main meta:
The default delay is… 15 minutes. No review tasks for the Close or
Reopen queues will be created until the oldest pending close vote or
flag or reopen vote or qualifying edit is at least 15 minutes old. No
review tasks for the Late Answer or Low Quality review queues will be
If an edit has improved the question but left more improvement still to be done, then by all means go ahead and do that improvement - just as you would have done if you'd come across the question after the edit had been approved and noticed there was still more improvement to be done.
The system even goes out of its way to make it easier for you to do this:
Yes, adding information is fine (if it’s not too much at once).
Quoting from the Help Centre on editing:
When should I edit posts?
Any time you feel you can make the post better, and are inclined to do so. Editing is encouraged!
Some common reasons to edit are:
to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
It probably means that you have been found to be approving edits containing content copied straight from other sources, most likely Wikipedia, too easy, almost automatically ('robotically').
This often happens on tag descriptions.
You are encouraged to take a break from reviewing and return to it in 7 days. I'm not sure if this goes for all queues or just ...
For context, here are the instructions currently provided for the First Posts queue:
No Action Needed when this post needs no action from you.
I'm Done is only available if you've done one of the following:
Vote up or down to rate the answer's helpfulness
Edit to improve the answer's appearance, clarity, or accuracy
Comment to leave constructive feedback ...
First off, congrats on 3k, and thanks a lot for asking that question - it's nice to see people wanting to review effectively and seriously :)
As this is SFF's meta, I'm going to try and wrap up a "close/don't close" guide for SFF. I'd refer to the FAQ post on main Meta for the broader scale but... It's a bit Stack Overflow-centric.
You can always Skip
See What are the review queues, and how do they work? on Main Meta (the Stack Exchange network-wide meta site). The review queues work pretty much the same on Science Fiction & Fantasy as on any other site:
With at least 500 rep, you can review new users' posts to see if any action is required on them (voting, flagging, editing, commenting, etc.) See As ...
If a question gets 3 "Leave Open" votes, it is removed from the review queue. Keep in mind that LO votes don't actually affect the question's closure*, just its queue status.
*: with the minor exception that being booted from the queue by LO votes begins the CV aging timer even if the question did not have the 100 views normally necessary for that.
Post quality seems to be defined according to the criteria in this main meta post:
Heuristics for detecting a bad answer?
contains word "help"
contains word "test" or "testing"
contains word "thanks", "thx", "cheers", "great"
contains word "bump"
contains word "...
The general rule of thumb is that an edit should improve the post in some fashion, either by clarifying the answer, adding additional relevant information or improving the readability.
For example, on a story-identification question;
Answer A mentions a book by name. The editor adds a hyperlink to the book's wikipedia page
Answer B also mentions a book. ...
Not really, your best bet is the main meta post that Jenayah already linked. For examples, you could always look through the list of closed questions (closed:yes) but that is tedious and not exactly the best way of learning. The best of way of learning is to review and see what others do. If you find your deviating from others most of the time, find out why.
Meta is for discussing the site itself, and for clarifying the rules. Certainly this sometimes entails discussing specific questions or answers, but ideally the goal should be that the specific examples are merely there to provide specific, practical illustrations of the policies of the whole site.
This suggestion feels a bit too much like "let's use meta ...
This is apparently such a popular request, that someone has written a client-side script to implement it.
From an answer to this existing meta question:
Update: Stack Overflow Unofficial Patch v1.10 now contains a client-side implementation of this feature. It works by detecting the presence of un-displayed answers (based on the summary table) and ...
This subject just came up on meta.so today as well.
I haven't seen full confirmation of this, but this answer mentions an important point if it's true. According to their (not a mod/staff) statement, a grammar edit could bump the question out of the VLQ/Deletion review queue. I've never noticed this to be the behavior, but it generally makes sense.
The reason the bar was raised is as follows:
Under the old system, the bar for "Late Answers" was lower than the bar for posting comments. This means that relatively new users were posting comments as answers, which is bad. They raised the bar so that these answers will show up in the queue, and can be reviewed. The inevitable side effect of this is an ...